Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>My
>biggest problem with arguments proposed not just by the DP opponents but
>left and right wing ideologues in general is that they want to establish a
>primacy of a moral principle they happen to favor over the rule of law -
>e.g. thou shalt not kill that "ought to" apply equally to everyone
>everywhere - as determined by whom? To me, this is a foundation of a
>theocracy - in fact that is precisely what the likes of Thomas Aquinas argue
>i.e. that "natural law" (as determined by church, of course!) trumps and
>forms the foundation of the "human law."
>
Is it not possible to conceive that a moral principle can exist apart
from a church? And, if it can, is it not
possible that we might want to think about how we want to organize our
lives around such a principle?
>
>A secular alternative of such views is the position that the law does not
>need any external justification other than being promulgated and upheld by
>legitimate authorities. From that is follows that breaking the law itself
>requires retribution regardless of any utility or disutility or moral
>dilemmas the infraction or retribution may cause. It is so, because doing
>otherwise would undermine the fundamental principle that law is binding in
>itself (rather than on some external moral or religious authority) and that
>is sufficient to command the duty to obey it on the pain of receiving the
>prescribed punishment. Without the punishment the duty to obey the law
>would simply not exist.
>
But people don't act morally because they follow laws.
Most people have no clue what the law allows them or forbids them to do.
People act the way they act largely due to the culture in which they
have been raised
and because of the way in which they have been raised.
They also act morally because of the extent to which they are capable of
love.
>
>It furthermore follows that if the law (as interpreted by courts) says that
>killing of kind A (e.g. execution or in a war) is acceptable while killing
>of type B (e.g. while committing armed robbery) is not - that is the only
>thing that matters, regardless of any other opinions, moral principles,
>religious beliefs or what not.
>
How can that possibly be the only thing that matters?
And why do you insist that only a church or a theocracy could articulate
moral law?
Joanna